-> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11178034

The objective is to build an orbital rocket with pieces bought in the equivalent of a Home Depot. The second launch failed because of a defect hair dryer. The science is there, the know-how is there, and mentioning the funding: the arabs have enough oil to pay for more than one space program. Just give them a reason.

Seriously, think about it as you like, but respect, specially for other peoples believes, should be considered.

I really like the “Mohammed on the Moon” idea. It would cause a permanent global meltdown of Islamic extremism.

But there’s no way Pakistan or any other Muslim country could develop the technology to send anything to the moon, much less a nuclear missile, much less with the accuracy to pinpoint a specific spot on the moon. Maybe in 100 or 200 years, but not anytime in the foreseeable future. Hell, even the US and the Russians, the only two countries to ever reach the moon’s surface (the Soviets crash-landed an unmanned craft on the moon once), can no longer even begin to afford a second moon-landing program.

I agree with Daniel Noe that sometimes some provocation is useful to start a debate, the first step to solve a problem. But concerning Muslims they are not on the same level as we are on the point of religion. Historically on both sides of the Atlantic and for good reasons we consider religion to be a completely private matter. Personally we may like or dislike campaigns like Ariane Serien´s / Richard Dawkin´s Atheist Bus Campaign (“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign) but accept it for reasons of freedom of speech, or at least a majority; many city owned bus companies in too many European cities refused to post these ads for fear of radical Christian protests or other political reasons, also Richard Dawkins is menaced to death in many Christian countries. Isn´t this censorship?

Again, the problem is that the point of view of Muslims concerning their religion is completely different. They never had a figure like the pope to oppose, or ever seriously questioned the Kuran. They never held a synod or council to discuss and question their dogma. It may not sound good, but concerning religion Muslims are some centuries behind us.

Or how do you think would your pilgrim fathers have reacted if anyone had said “There´s no God” in the early 18th century? Think of Salem and the burning of witches. The Spanish Inquisition. When the Taliban destroyed the Buddha statues in Afghanistan the world was shocked for the destruction of pieces of art, but how many churches did the Protestants assault in the 16th century to free them of images of God and burn the images? We tend to forget that not three hundred years ago we were not so different and would have sympathized with the Muslims on this issue.

With time, thanks to the birth of the individual in the American and French revolutions as well as the industrial revolution we started cutting the power of the Churches and religions, searched and found other values and finally are where we are today and are happy about it.

Muslims were thrown from their (mostly) colonial past into the modern (democratic) industrial (today perhaps post-industrial) world without having time to evolve like we did, to adapt. By economic and political success, sheer violence and conquest or practical reasons we have imposed on their societies our values and of course they can only find refuge in their religion, it´s the only own cultural value that remains to them, that is truly theirs by right, history and tradition and attacking this value just makes them mad. Isn´t their attitude at least understandable?

The arguments I read concerning the issue of the pictures on Zombie´s blog just consider “our” point of view, they don´t take account of the Muslim reality and feelings. I said it before, in my opinion provocations like this are just fuelling the radicals and preventing any advance or liberalization in the Muslim world. They just force every Muslim to take sides, and the radicals are closer than we are (and also more dangerous). Muslims must take these steps on their own, we can´t force them to do that. If we really consider ourselves to be more advanced and civilized, we should take account of those who are not and give them time and help them were we can and when we are asked to, we can not expect that Muslims to change their mind and points of view in a second just because we want them to.

And no, I don´t agree or support the ideas that we should give in and give them all they ask for, we have to show determination and if necessary force and most of all demand from them that they treat us as seriously as they want to be treated. The question is how do we do this. All efforts of the last 50 years have failed, so what now?

Concerning your left / right arfgumentation, historically in Europe it was the left that took power from the state and started decentralization policies, while the right, for nationalist and populist reasons tried to avoid or reverse this. Left / right politics change once you cross the atlantic. Or as I once had to explain in Texas – ” I am a republican. In Spain that means that I am on the far left and want to execute the king.”